http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/supre ... le/2643017

SCOTUS announced Friday that they will hear the United States v. Sanchez-Gomez case, which is looking at whether defendants should have to wear physical restraints, including shackles, when they appear in court.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the practice violated a defendants' right that he or she be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the use of shackles would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

However, the ruling was later contradicted in two other appeals courts.

What's your opinion on shackled defendants in the courtroom?

In various sci-fi books I have read, the prisoners/defendants wore high-tech shock collars, that could be used to subdue a restrained person at the touch of a button. We actually could build such shock devices today, that would eliminate the need to employ old-style chain restraints on legs and arms.

johndoe3 wrote:
What's your opinion on shackled defendants in the courtroom?

People tend to be pretty stupid. There are many, mostly over the age of 50 these days, who firmly believe that the cops are good people and that they would never arrest a person unless they were guilty. Japan is chock full of those sorts, so they cannot use the jury system. Shackles and orange suits add to the observer’s bia against the accused.

In various sci-fi books I have read, the prisoners/defendants wore high-tech shock collars, that could be used to subdue a restrained person at the touch of a button. We actually could build such shock devices today, that would eliminate the need to employ old-style chain restraints on legs and arms.

Shock/ TASER belts already exist. A judge or two has already been censured for using them to torture people. The belts are almost always used in conjunction witn chains. Ever see the original series Star Trek titled Mirror, mirror...? We now have agonizers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stun_belt

poikilotrm wrote:... Shackles and orange suits add to the observer’s bia against the accused.
...

So does a suit and tie, present the defendant as a disembodied voice or better a transcript. Judge them on their words alone.

doubloon wrote: So does a suit and tie, present the defendant as a disembodied voice or better a transcript. Judge them on their words alone.

If that is the case, then let them wear the suit and tie. And they don’t speak, their lawyer does.

Arthur: Why do you say that this woman is a witch?
Peasant: Look at how she’s dressed! And look at her nose!
Accused witch: They put this on me. See? The nose is fake.

doubloon wrote:

poikilotrm wrote:... Shackles and orange suits add to the observer’s bia against the accused.
...

So does a suit and tie, present the defendant as a disembodied voice or better a transcript. Judge them on their words alone.

Are you saying that a suit and tie makes someone look guilty?

No shackles.
If someone is violent, that's what the Court Officers/Bailiffs are for.

poikilotrm wrote:

doubloon wrote: So does a suit and tie, present the defendant as a disembodied voice or better a transcript. Judge them on their words alone.

If that is the case, then let them wear the suit and tie. And they don’t speak, their lawyer does.

Arthur: Why do you say that this woman is a witch?
Peasant: Look at how she’s dressed! And look at her nose!
Accused witch: They put this on me. See? The nose is fake.

Yeah but does she weigh more or less than a duck?

jlwilliams wrote:...
Are you saying that a suit and tie makes someone look guilty?

I believe it creates a bias, whether for or against the defendant depends on the perspective of the juror.

fishman wrote: Yeah but does she weigh more or less than a duck?

Who are you, sir, that is so wise in the ways of science?

doubloon wrote:

jlwilliams wrote:...
Are you saying that a suit and tie makes someone look guilty?

I believe it creates a bias, whether for or against the defendant depends on the perspective of the juror.

Interesting.

jlwilliams wrote:...
Interesting.

Not really, appearance has been creating bias for centuries.

Sure, but a suit is more or less ubiquitous men's businesses/ not-casual clothing. Being in court isn't casual. It's not jeans and sneakers time, it's tuck in your shirt and straighten up your tie time. Does taking the proceeding seriously enough to dress like you take it seriously create bias?

To answer the OP, if the Defendant is unruly in Court, THAT would predispose the Jury and THEN they could be shackled AFTER that. But NOT before a Disruption. Not even a Disruption in Lockup, because they have more to lose by displaying violence in Court. Although, AFTER the Jury has decided and the Defendant is awaiting Judgement, THEN might be a good time to shackle them IN CASE of a Guilty Verdict. I've seen too many violent attacks once the Accused has been found Guilty. And if found Innocent, they should have the Right to IMMEDIATE Release, not out-processing through the Jail. That's just adds Hours or Days that the Person is still in Confinement.
***
Actually, DOC often put Defendants in 1970s suits to ostracize them from the Jury. They are required to present the Accused suit and tie, but not a modern or stylish one. Though Rulings have found that 1980s is now the Current Standard. It's close enough for Modern.
***
Maybe all involved Parties should wear dress smocks like in British Courts. They would cover the clothing and everyone would be put on even Footing. Not the Judge 3' higher than everyone (highly intimidating for many ppl) and wearing special garb.

Personally, I'd like to see the Prosecutor wear the Orange Jumpsuit and Shackles. They are probably the GREATEST threat to the Community. They steal Money in the form of Unagreed Taxation, then threaten to Civil Seizure their Assets and put them through the Criminal Process that victimizes even the Innocent. I think that those found Innocent should receive back 3xs their Legal Fees and Damages for the Emotional Trauma they have endured. THAT would put the Peasantry on an even Footing w the Elites!